I don't belive anyone can be sure 100% one way or the other, so you just have to look at the available evidence and decide for yourself which is more likely. Based on the evidence presented before me since I was a child, I belive it far more likely that god(s) don't exist.
what is the sertanty that god does not exist? i am pretty sure. i am open for possiblibty. but right now it seemes that god does not exists is propable 1 to 1. ither god or gods exist, or they dont. its ither 1 to 1 that god or gods exist, or 1 to 1 that they do. i see no reason to belive that they exist. thus i seen no consivible way them to exist, thus it seemes to me that god exist 0 probality of 1. now culd god exist? some sort of god culd exist, yes. but i not convinced that it does.
Constructing a confidence interval for this sort of thing is not codified at this point so there goes "percent confident." I have seen enough historic evidence that I'm about as close as I can ever be to 100% certain no religion of man has ever revealed a god should it exist. Some form of god we've never pondered may exist but I don't know. I see no utility in such a belief nor evidence for it so I maintain skepticism. Most of man's gods are just absurd anyway.
im also 99 percent sure none of u have even studied christianity or read the bible to get christianity athiest are lazy people who dont want to put effort in finding a god
My definition of Atheism is a lack of belief in a divine, supernatural being (deity)
No one can prove God doesn't exist, but you can't prove that a Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't either. It's really just being nearly certain, but you can't say you "know"
All these comments talk about how they are athiests.well there is no sich thing as an atheist. Every body believes is something wether they like it or not. I will pray for all of you
Matt Dillahunty from the Atheist Experience has some good stuff to say about this question, which is basically about epistemology. As I understand it, belief isn't a sliding scale, you either believe it, or you doubt it. You don't really have to justify doubt, usually you just don't have enough justification or evidence to accept something as true, which is what believing is.
How certain am I that no god exists, not certain at all, maybe 6.5 how certain that your God does not exist 7. He has had 3,000 years to show himself and has failed, so it's a certainty.
I'm an atheist, in that I hold no belief in god. I would assert the nonexistence of the gods of any religion that I've heard of with the same degree of certainty that I have with regard to anything else that I believe I "know." This is to say about 99% because I don't believe 100% certainty is possible in regard to anything but your own existence.
Most self-identified Muslims and Christians I know of have always said yes, they have no doubt whatsoever. They KNOW there's a God. However, I have yet to ever once meet up with any atheist anywhere who claimed to be 100% certain there was no God. With regards to atheism, the question is not what you KNOW, it's what you BELIEVE. If right now, with what you know, the evidence you have, do you believe in any Gods? If the answer is no, then you're an atheist. 100% certainty is irrelevant.
The best way I'd describe my certainty is how Lewis Black said it (loosely remembered) I'd like to believe, to have the FAITH in God and that the planet was created in 7 days but... I have thoughts and they can really screw up the faith thing."
I'm 100% in my belief that god does not exist, because the theory that he exists. presents no physical evidence. In my opinion he's about as real as the easter bunny, or santa claus, or Miley Cyrus' virginity.
i'm 100% atheist and I doubt i'll ever believe god exists, except on my death bed of course, because after all. We do tend to fear death in the end as our small existence ends.
I must confess that even if I heard God himself tell me that he is real my first thought would be that I'm suffering from schyzophrenia. So as I'm more than 99.9% sure God does not exist I'd like to round that number to 100% without claiming knowledge of the absolute truth. The odds against God existing are astronomical.
I think you are getting a little too wrapped up in semantics and literal meanings. I happen to agree with Dawkins but only for the sake of pedantic individuals. Under the literal meaning of the word 'atheist' as you look at it, I would be a 6.9 out of 7. But in general conversation I identify myself as an atheist; the general understanding of which is 'I have seen no evidence that convinces me that a god or gods exist'. My turning point was 'Letter to a Christian nation' by Sam Harris. Cheers.
Atheist are not saying that there is, certainly, no god; but rather there is no evidence to be certain that there is one. And from my prospective- there is, in fact, evidence to the contrary- evidence that god do not exist. I think you continue to have an open mind and I congratulate you on your question.
I would consider myself amongst the Atheist crowd. The definition that you mentioned is slightly off from my understanding. The major reasoning behind Atheism is that logic and reason are the fundamental components for understanding the laws and forces of the universe. There is no deferment to a supernatural explaination. Claims must have evidence. I think that Atheism allows for an open mindedness that religion can not.
Of course I question my certainty in atheism for the fact that I have been force fed the idea of a god from the time I was a child. Due to classical conditioning , we humans have a predisposition to believe in an idea of god. I am agnostic as all get out. Christian theology contradicts itself way too much for me to be a devouted believer.
I reckon every atheist should be an skeptic also. That's why Richard doesn't put himself at number 7. As he mentioned on that book, if God somehow is proved to exist, with evidence, he'd accepted it and change his mind overnightly.
I was raised as a catholic and turned atheist recently, and I tend to be skeptical about anything. So being 100% either way doesnt work because you are ignoring and being arrogant.
@PlayDrumz Agnosticism is on another plane....you can be an agnostic atheist, in which you are fairly certain there is no god but you believe there is no way of knowing for sure.......or an agnostic theist which you a fairly certain there is a god but there is no way of knowing for sure.....then there are people who are gnostic, in which you are 100% certain......I am a agnostic atheist myself
i myself am in percentage rate would be at a 85% just because of history and that the christian belief was more or less forged up to help explain things like in all religions. And now that we have learned these things it just doesnt seem possible for a higher being to have final rule over us.
i dont want to be anything. do i have to be? i dont know thats all i know for everything that eventually exist people come up with names for, but i dont care.
@91jgphonecall yeah you kinda have to be something, whether you like it or not.that's just the very nature of labels, you have to identify with one of them, whether you like it or not. the trick is to self-identify rather than allowing others to label you
Well, I don't believe in God for now (till is proven that it/he/she exists), and as proving it/he/she exists is not possible (for me), i think I'll die with the same believe I have today.
Not believing have simplified much my life in a very good way. I believe in Nature, rules and laws.
God is only a word that explain everything.
The true secret of happiness is discovered by the person within himself (People who claimed that have found God, have just found their selfs).
To claim that you can prove something doesn't exist is foolish. To claim that something must exist because it cannot be disproven, without presenting any evidence in the positive realm for its existence, is even more foolish.
I don't claim that I can prove god doesn't exist. I don't believe he exists because there is absolutely no evidence to show that he does. Therefore, I call myself an atheist.
But back to my explanations for how I see myself. I wouldn't call myself an atheist, even though to others I might apparently be so. I think my 'beliefs' are in tradition of wanting detailed analysis and explanations for world phenomenon.
@NegativeNick Come to think of it, I guess so. Because isn't the word 'atheist' used by those from a particular religion (any) against those who are have rejected the religion that they practice? Then to 'believers', atheism is equated with a rejection of goodness, even though this is not the case.
@NegativeNick So it's a negative label, like 'apostasy'. Really, 'atheists' should call themselves something else as it causes semantic confusion. People who call themselves atheists are simply in the new vanguard of thinking. Which is the logical evolution of thinking about what people might call 'spirituality'.
So my current conclusion is that I am pretty much a 6 on the scale of agnosticism, similar to Dawkins. But at the same time I identify with what Blake called 'the poetic genius' of the religions of the world. But I also see the word God as redundant for my personal usage to explain phenomenon though.
In your response if there is 100% no God...Two ideas that currently affect my 'beliefs' are: 1. that God was used in the bible as another version of nature (or external world) and its etymological use has shifted to include moral-justice system connotations amongst the religious 2. anthropomorphism
The Dictionary Definition of Atheist is rather poor. There is just no, or not enough evidence for the existence of god.
Though the Jewish/christen/muslim god i'm 100% does not exist. But not not 100%, probably 90-95% certain no god/gods exists or at least pay our planet any mind.
In respects to what you present about Dawkins is slightly skewed from what I remember of it personally. Dawkins was asked if there was a god period - not specifically one who can intervene in your life or hear your prayers, etc. What he's referring to is what I call the absent-god theory (to my knowledge, I don't think there is an actual proper term for this). Meaning god started the engine of the universe and walked away. Yes, this could be true, and I admit this. But... whats the point?
100% - there has yet to be a natural phenomenon in the entire universe which has observably required a god variable of any kind. Given the broad amount of knowledge amassed, I can confidently say there is no rational reason to even humor such an idea.
I consider myself an ant-theist because to me, atheist means someone who sits quietly with their beliefs. I openly encourage confronting theists about their beliefs. If they can't stand up to logical scrutiny, how are they worthy of belief?
Well, I think the first question one should ask is "who is this god person anyway?" I have found as many views on god as I have found believers. My response varies by the god, from ignostic (the god is not defined in an Intelligible manner), agnostic-atheist (the god is not impossible but may be rejected on probabilistic and pragmatic grounds), or strong atheism (the god implies a contradiction). I have yet to encounter a " god" which my belief might not be placed in one of these categories.
I think the possibility of a god (in a religious context) is highly improbable, for various reasons.
Although believing in evolution as I do proves how things that seem impossible, if given enough time are highly probable.. so I think theres a probability but I dont really think it really compares to scientific theories, being due to there being no evidence.
Well as I said below, which I will reiterate. From a scientific point of view, which is also mine. There are no absolutes, only probabilities. From my point of view the probability of there being a God is not zero but it is very close. That is the difference between science and religion. religion is about absolutes, science has, and must always have an open mind.
I'm not sure i buy that definition. does anyone really know for sure there isn't a god? even atheists don't go that far. Even strong atheists. some may say "there is no god" but not out of absolute certainity, rather, its out of a lack of evidence for the proposition
Creationism = perfection, Nonsense, there are no absolutes in nature**. if there were nothing could ever change.
God as most people think of him,it,she whatever doesn't and cannot exist. If everything was created, who created GOD the whole concept is contradictory. The thing that could perhaps make sense is a universal energy 'force' Poz & Neg, (perhaps StarWars isn't so for off) which all living things may posses. For the record i am 98% Athiist**, An open mind is a sign of intelligence.
by the way, NegNick, try n read other authors than Dawkins (Dawkins is OK but kinda narrowminded, got HIS view and doesnt believe there can B other 1s), for example: Sam Harris, the End of Faith, Carl Sagan's Demonhaunted World and Terry Pratchett's Sience of Discworld, all very good in explaining whats the real difference between an atheist and a theist, the former doesnt BELIEVE actually, s/he ASSUMES and tries 2 KNOW whereas the latter will accept something blindly b/c of his/her FAITH...
we know 99% for certain that there is a mechanism called gravity, there R theories like superstring that sort of refute the existence of gravity but still call 4 a mechanism 2 explain the effect gravity has. Iin our everyday lives we have a 100% experience of gravity (just jump from a building, youll get enough proof). so even if youre a 99% atheist and say, well, "you never know a 100%", youre still conciderably more convinced of the nonexistence of god, since there IS 100% NO PROOF of him/it!
I do not label myself. All of the above mentioned are descriptions & labels that people place on others to categorize them. Anyone who claims that they "know" or are 100% sure there is no God, god(s) ect. or that there is a God, god(s) ect. are lying to themselves. I do not believe in god(s), because there is no valid evidence to support that there is...
Based on all evidence, and facts that we know about the universe, and the logic used to explain everything we know, I am at the moment 100% certain that a god doesn't exist, because there is absolutely nothing at all in this universe that would say otherwise.
If evidence is uncovered that directly proves the existence of god (which would in affect destroy all current knowledge we have about everything) then I would be a believer, but since there is no evidence, I assert there is no god.
I really wouldn't call myself an atheist, because in general the term doesn't really make sense. You wouldn't call a Muslim an "achristian" even though the statement is completely true.
A term that is becoming quite popular these days is "Pearlism" which is not a belief, but an adherence to physical evidence, and reasoned logic. The scientific Method at its core.
A scientist is an legitimately educated member of the scientific community. I do not hold this title because I don't have the necessary degrees. I would love to call myself a scientist but until I finish my education I am not quite there yet, so I like what Thunderf00t has gone by.
I can see what you are saying about not having the degrees, but I still think one could call themselves a scientist if they lived their live according to the scientific method. I'm kind of partial to Shermer's Skeptic because it implies the same thing as scientist but doesn't suppose a post-graduate degree in something.
I am currently working on a biology degree with a focus on evolutionary theory, I am nearly finished with my undergraduate work, and preparing to go for my masters, then PhD. Once I obtain that PhD, and a good job based on my education, only then a scientist will I be.
Yeah, I find that a lot of people who call themselves atheists are actually more like what Christians think of as agnostics, but who don't want to suggest there on the fence about religion which they've concluded is human not divine. But many atheists see themselves as concluding there is no evidence for believe in a deity rather than belief they know their is no deity. I think there is no reason to think our religions are more divine than human though there may be something beyond th natural.
for me it works like this, for all practical purposes there is no god but that doesn't mean we can prove that there isn't. unicorns and tooth faries may not likely exist but we can't prove absolutely that they don't.
but if you're using RD's scale that would mean you can prove absolutely your claim that god doesn't exist. I would like to see your evidence for that claim.
To the same certainty that I dont believe in unicorns, lephrechauns etc....Dawkins was only recognizing that NOTHING can be known 100 % He actually does identify himself as an atheist, he believes there is no god. Agnostic isnt a position like atheism and theism are. Agnostics are just recognising the impossibility of knowing FOR SURE. So basically you can be an agnostic atheist (which I would think most are) as atheism is usually defined as a LACK of belief implying uncertainty.
think critically about that statement. all it really proves is that there are defects in our genes that cause some babies to be born blind, deaf, etc. it's entirely possible a malevelant god is responsible for this type of phenomonon, therefore, the argument from birth defects is not one against the existence of god
"Atheism" to me means "believing there is no god". Not "knowing". For that you'd need a further qualifier like "strong atheism" or something. I'm an agnostic atheist, which means I don't know, but I'm leaning to one side - I believe there's no god, but I'm not certain. (though close)
I feel pretty comfortable saying with as much certainty as you can make any claim that the Judeo-Christian does not exist, nor do any man made "religious" Gods.
A Deist god (which I think was derived from religious gods) by religious standards, wouldn't even be considered a (G)od. So even if I believed an intelligent agent jump started the universe (which I see no evidence for)
I wouldn't consider it a God any more than we would be Gods if we created a sentient computer, or some day learned to create universes ourselves.
That being said, having read pretty much everything Dawkins has written, as well as having heard him speak numerous times, my impression is that the only reason he wouldn't say "there are no gods" is because you can't say ANYTHING with 100% certainty.
Well if you are asking my level of certainty that the God the Christian Bible does not exist, then that would be 99.999....%
I think there very well might have been a prime mover of some sort, but definately not a consious being who thinks and writes books and tells us what to do. If you want to call that a god then go ahead, but it has nothing to do with the historical conception of a god is. I dont think Aristotle would have considered his prime mover a god, Aquinus butchered the whole idea.
I'm an Atheist because of the lack of evidence for a creator. I grew up as a Religious person, however got more knowledge and understanding as growing up and noticed things just didn't sit right, so went back to the old bible and read and I felt really sick that I ever "believed" in that God. As someone said earlier there is no 100% (no matter what anyone says) proof that god does not exist, However you can explain why things have came about via science now. Big Bang, Abiogenesis, Evolution
The Contradictions I found in the Bible it self, along with the Old Testament of How sick it really was.
Exodus Chapter 21 - Verse 20 - "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
If you want more info just Google Bible Contradictions, to many for me to even list here.
Well Deism still supports the belief in a God, even though I do not "Believe" in any form of God or Gods. I would say Deism would be more acceptable and should be more acceptable to those who currently have faith. It would seem more likely that a God that does not do divine interventions in human affairs, would be more likely. I do not support Raliean either however it would seem likely that there is life that has evolved to the point that's able to create life it self.
Knowing the History of our planet and the forms of Fossils we have already discovered surely shows a evolutionary track for our world. This is not to say some other force in the Universe would not be capable of creating life. I just do not support the view that , it's How we came to be.
Abiogenesis is a very interesting field to look into and keep a close eye on. I suggest for anyone interested to check into it.
Along with the Contradictions and Sick twisted things in the I started to doubt it, I was always told The normal creation myth, however when I started looking through History I noticed Christianity was not the 1st one and the age of the earth did not match up either to the Bible. Along with all these I formed my on feelings upon the Bible it self, and then started studying science, (evolution, history and recently getting into Abiogenesis) and seen there doesn't need to be a God for us to exist.
Well nothing can be known for certain, besides that I (or the individual questioning himself) exist(s).
Since I'm not really certain that anything, including the keyboard I'm typing on, exists, I don't know if it's appropriate to say I believe in something that doesn't even have any evidence that couldn't exist in the first place.
Basically, there's no evidence in favor of theism, so I don't think its correct.
but if nothing can really be proven to exist why do you say that the lack of evidence for a god supports atheism? if all evidence of existence is unprovable, why should the lack of evidence for a god be an argument for atheism?
I don't really know if I'd call it an argument, that's just a portion of my reasoning.
I was just saying there's already so much to be unsure about, that adding a God that doesn't have any (even potentially nonexistent) data supporting it over complicates things.
Maybe over complicates isn't the right way to put it.
It just circumnavigates the question about the universe's existence, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, i suppose, it... damn Youtube, always cutting me off.
Lack of evidence for God does not support atheism directly. It does however raise the question of "why that particular god??" The sheer amount of religions makes choosing a particular one sheer ludicrusy, and it quite generally becomes a matter of geography and upbringing. People are muslims in the middle east, christians in the west, hindus and buddhists in the east.
Add to this the fact that the holy, infallible scriptures REEK with proven factual errors! So why should we trust those books?
atheism is a belief like NOT collecting stamps is a hobby. If I'm 100% think that unicorns don't exist, then I am 100% god doesn't exist. Since I am not 100% certain unicorns don't exist I don't say that of god either.
Wrong from the get go. Atheism is the disbelief in deisties and that is not the same as the belief that deities do not exist. The latter is simply not accepting the belief due to a lack of evidence. Your question is a good one.
ere is somthing to think about. No atheist will say they are certain in their belief that no deities exist, including myself. It is illogical to do so. However many theists claim certainty that god exists and plays a major part in their life. Who is overconfident?
I do not believe there is a God, just as I do not believe in anything without the slightest scientific evidence. No santa, no treespirit and so on. But ofcoarse science haven't given all the answers yet, so I can't close the door compleetly. But you realy have to squeese through. So that 6,9 works fine for me as well.
Dawkins' 7-point scale works for me. I, too, am a 6.9. I call myself an atheist on YouTube because I'm sick of arguing over the various definitions of agnostic vs atheist. I don't believe in the supernatural. To my mind what is, is natural. Period. That doesn't leave room for any god. If I'm proved wrong, and either Yaweh or Allah is true, then I suppose I shall be fried up like a giant pork rind one day. Any being capable of doing that to me for lack of belief isn't worthy of worship anyway.
Atheism defines someone who does not believe in the supernatural. God is supernatural and furthermore there is not any evidence whatsoever for his existence...in fact all the evidence is the other way.
Actually, the point of this video is to illustrate that there are many personal definitions of the word Atheist, that's why I offer viewers to include their own. I would argue that neither a dictionary nor Wiki has a final say of what it means to be an Atheist, they merely offer broad generalizations. In truth, anytime you are dealing with an issue as complex as God, its sophomoric to reduce people to simple, all or nothing generalizations.If you don't like the definitions, include your own.
I'm fully aware that etymological deviations can arise through inconsistent usage, contextual variations, and so forth. However, when dealing with "an issue as complex as God," wouldn't it be more advisable to begin with strenuously categorized definitions as a starting point rather than a source that can be changed on a whim? Maybe relying on wikipedia for definitions is sophmoric to some people? In my humble opinion, I would say that atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god.
But isn't that what the definition I posted says anyway?
I agree with you that quoting Wiki isn't acceptable for scholarly work but this is just a youtube video and I wanted to use a general definition, wiki seems very general too me.
So no, I think given the situation it isn't juvenile to quote wiki, besides, their definiton was taken from...
^ Rowe, William L. (1998). "Atheism". in Edward Craig. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
I agree, your video is presented in an informal manner, so my bad for the harsh criticism. I may have been venting a little because I see way too many university students trying to cite wiki in papers. However, there is a huge difference between lacking belief in a god and claiming there is no god. Since "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," the most one can reasonably assert is that there is insufficient evidence to prove the existence or warrant the belief in any supposed diety.
Atheism is the philosophical position that deities do not exist,[1] or that rejects theism.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]
That is the definition from Wikipedia. I think your question is based on the premise of an incomplete definition.
Agreed. Too many people jump into this argument without understanding the full epistemological definition of the term "atheism".
Atheism implies lack of belief. Agnosticism implies lack of knowledge in the supernatural. What's been classed as "strong" atheism is agnostic atheism: creed immaterial, there is no evidence, nor reason to believe, that there is an supernatural influence on this world.
This probably has been covered in a video elsewhere, but it needs repeating.
Well, by his meter of belief, I am a 6.7. I don't believe that a god cannot exist, because that is absurd. I am very open to proof of god(even though i doubt i will see any, since science is neutral towards the supernatural) and won't deny the fact that it is there. I know a god existing is very unlikely, but there is still a possibility(as much a possibility as creationists claiming evolution is random).
atheism is disbelief in god, not the belief in his absence. like, if santa clause were a god, and you didnt believe in santa clause, then you would be an atheist in that regard. you would say you dont believe in him, you wouldnt say you believe he doesnt exist. disbelief, not belief. most atheists are agnostic, while fewer theists are--this is because they think their lives are at stake, literally. they dont want certain death, so they rationalize their fantasy any way they can. its survival.
I am a 6. I admit that there is no way anyone can prove there is no god, but that's about the end of the support I can think of for god, even that isn't really support.
The phrase I would use it "There could be a god...but I really, really doubt it".
Nick---You sound like someone who "had" religion but not relationship with God. True Christianity is a relationship not a bunch of rules. How can I prove ANY relationship? Its just the time I spend with the individual. If you don't believe in God you shut off any possibility of having a relationship with Him. Get rid of religion---its the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity (or should I say---relationship to God). Blessings!
I call myself a non-theist. That's clearer than the word atheist, because many people interpret atheist to mean anti-theist, which I am not. I do not believe in gods.
I certainly don't like to label people especially on an issue as big as this. but if you are looking for a word you can relate you, you might want to try Agnostic. someone who doubts the existence of god.
the whole point of this video was to examine the spectrum of possibilities that exist within a word like Atheist. not one is absolutely The or Ag or Ath, its all about finding what works for you and adopting the mold to fit your own understanding.
I am not opposed to the concept of God. I am opposed to the existence of a physical and sentient God, as Nietzsche was. But Nietzsche was a very religious man. I, alas, am Catholic. I do not believe in the Levitical God that is preached in the Bible, Koran, or Torah. Those are stories and metaphors. When I think about quantum physics, however, God comes back in numbers. So, like I said, 6.9 and climbing.
the 7.0 scale was concerning whether any god existed, not an intelligent creator god vs. a vague sense of order to the cosmos (the god Hawking talks about) and you seem to believe in. You sound more like 1.0 and climbing on Dawkin's scale. that is, you believe there is a god but that it doesn't interact with its creation. does that sound right? if it is, you may be more of a deist. they believed in a creator god but not in all the miracles in the christian bible.
I definitely do not believe in a creator God. Maybe I haven't given this as much thought as you have. I don't believe in an interactive God, either. I believe that we are casual observers who will never know and cannot possibly comprehend. How would you label me?
Good point. I thought you were going to go on a tirade about theism/atheism, but you poised a good question that made me think. I am like Dawkins (6.9 and climbing), but I am in no way opposed to the idea of a higher power or being.
How can you be 6.9 and climbing and yet "...no way opposed to the idea..." of a god? Do you mean to say that you don't rule out the possibility of a god, just the probability?
I am as certain that there are no gods as I am that there are no invisible blue elves living under my bed. I cannot rule out for FACT there is no god just as I cannot rule out for fact there are no blue goblins. However without a single speck of evidence for either I feel comfortable in my belief of no gods.
I would call myself an atheist because i don't belvieve in gods mentioned in christianity, islam or any other religion. when it comes down to supernatural beings i can only be agnostic.
I am an atheist in response to the proposed Gods of man-made religions. I do not believe in the existence of the god of the bible, Allah, or any of the hundreds of other gods that have been imagined. I see no evidence for any of them
Is it possible that a creator exists who didn't write a book and doesn't communicate with humans?
Yes. That's possible. I think it's unlikely, but it's possible.
Its Actually more possible that were in a simulation of a universe in some advanced civilizations lab or computer, (like a matrix but maybe more or less evil). Thats if you subscribe to the twist on the multi universe theory, that is there is a universe for every possible possibility. I don't know much about the theory but I don't believe many people support it. But the multi-universe theory is becoming more popular as far as i can tell.
I am an atheist a far as all thought of gods go. I am agnostic as to what is unknown. There is no evidence for the supernatural. You can debate the existence of gods but the evolution-creation debate is way over. This stuff is just wack a mole.
What can you say really? The dictionary is wrong in its definition. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. The definition in the dictionary applies only to "strong atheism", not atheism as a whole.
Thus, agnostics like myself are also atheists.
There are several different branches of atheism, each with its own level of certainty. To define all of atheism as the belief you'd find in only one of the brances is just silly.
Continued: Of course, you should say a), as you simply have no belief in that concept. Of course, you could investigate more and decide that it's wrong, and your answer will become b), but that's only after examining the evidence. Atheism is position a), not position b).
More on definitions... if the definition of "theism" is "Belief in the existence of a god or gods", then the more appropriate definition of "atheism" is "Lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods".
But why do we need a word, anyway? I mean, what's the word for "Lack of belief in... " a) Santa Clause? b) Fairies? c)Pink Unicorns?
Let's say someone introduces you to a concept you've never heard of before... would you say you a) lack belief in that concept or b) believe the concept wrong?
You're getting far too hung up on the terminology (and I think your definition is wrong). If you do not have a belief in a god or gods, you are an atheist.
Personally, I call myself an atheist because it's the easiest way to communicate to others my religious perspective - I have not seen sufficient evidence to believe that there is a god, nor have I seen conclusive evidence to know for sure that there is not... but the evidence I have seen leads more strongly down the "not" path.
I submitted a video, but this comment follows up. I think "non-theist" probably best describes my take. It's broad enough to capture nuances that 'atheist' might exclude. I'm also OK with "ignostic" and "theological non-cognitivist." Since believers can't provide a postive, coherent ontology for what they call "god" (at least I've yet to see one do it) -- a task that is logically prior to the question of whether a god exists -- I don't think we can even reach the existence questions.
I give it 100% certainty there is no god. Here's why. If me and my friends wrote a book about a silver unicorn that spewed the entire universe out of its horn, WOULD THE REST OF THE WORLD BE FORCED TO CONSIDER THIS AS A POSSIBILITY FOR THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE? Of course not. This is why I don't need to consider god as he is simply a character in a 2k year old storybook.
I would give it a fair amount of certainty. I would definitely never give it 100%, but it would definitely be close for most of the gods that are claimed to exist.
I feel that, if anything, there could be a deistic-type god - one that does not interact with this world at all. It just set the universe into motion, and is sitting back and relaxing. But I see no real reason to believe that to be true, currently.
The right question is "WHY have you taken the position you espouse?" I'm an atheist because there is no evidence for the god that the religious assert exists. If evidence comes along, I'll revise my position, but until that time I simply have no reason to even SUGGEST that there MIGHT be a god.
I'm not asserting that there ISN'T one, only that there is absolutely no reason to give that assertion credence AT ALL...and that my position is malleable to evidence.
Richard Dawkins identifies himself as an atheist. He just doesn't identify himself as an atheist according to the definition you're giving here. Almost no one does. No one can say "100% : there is no god" when the definition of god changes from person to person.
At least 5 people a day upload videos telling atheists what they do or do not believe. The simplest definition of atheism is "the lack of belief in gods"
I'm 100% sure that Yahweh doesn't exist. I'm a little less sure about Odin.
I consider most particular religions to be utterly false - Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. They have less likelihood of being true than one has of squaring the circle.
It's possible there is some kind of God. I just don't believe one exists. I actively think there is no God. I'm not absolutely certain, of course - nor do I need to be.
Your definition of 'atheism' is different than the one that most atheists use. To them, atheism is just a lack of belief (which is what many religious people consider 'agnosticism').
Regarding Dawkins, he does not say he is not an atheist, he just acknowledges that he does not know everything. He is open to new information, despite the fact that his current understanding shows no evidence of any god outside the imagination.
Most atheists here will disagree with your definitions of the terms agnostic/atheist. Agnostic refers to knowledge. There are agnostic theists and atheists.
An atheist is everyone who is not a theist, i.e who actively believes a god exists. it does not require absolute certainty in the nonexistence of a god, just to a certainty based on evidence or the lack of it.
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't belive anyone can be sure 100% one way or the other, so you just have to look at the available evidence and decide for yourself which is more likely. Based on the evidence presented before me since I was a child, I belive it far more likely that god(s) don't exist.
MrSitemaster2 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
MrSitemaster2 3 weeks ago
what is the sertanty that god does not exist? i am pretty sure. i am open for possiblibty. but right now it seemes that god does not exists is propable 1 to 1. ither god or gods exist, or they dont. its ither 1 to 1 that god or gods exist, or 1 to 1 that they do. i see no reason to belive that they exist. thus i seen no consivible way them to exist, thus it seemes to me that god exist 0 probality of 1. now culd god exist? some sort of god culd exist, yes. but i not convinced that it does.
gethsoftware 5 months ago
Athiests don't believe ....it's just a stance against religious claims. You have to know what Atheisim is.
spareaxe 5 months ago
Constructing a confidence interval for this sort of thing is not codified at this point so there goes "percent confident." I have seen enough historic evidence that I'm about as close as I can ever be to 100% certain no religion of man has ever revealed a god should it exist. Some form of god we've never pondered may exist but I don't know. I see no utility in such a belief nor evidence for it so I maintain skepticism. Most of man's gods are just absurd anyway.
wkrepelin 6 months ago
im also 99 percent sure none of u have even studied christianity or read the bible to get christianity athiest are lazy people who dont want to put effort in finding a god
scottymcballer 7 months ago
if there is no god what do u believe happens when u die if your wrong u will go to hell
scottymcballer 7 months ago
@scottymcballer What if you're wrong and there are no god(s)?
MrSitemaster2 3 weeks ago
My definition of Atheism is a lack of belief in a divine, supernatural being (deity)
No one can prove God doesn't exist, but you can't prove that a Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't either. It's really just being nearly certain, but you can't say you "know"
TheRationalist76 9 months ago
All these comments talk about how they are athiests.well there is no sich thing as an atheist. Every body believes is something wether they like it or not. I will pray for all of you
theunstopabletomato 11 months ago
@theunstopabletomato Lack of belief in a deity* So really, anyone can be an Atheist, they just don't have to believe in any form of God
TheRationalist76 9 months ago
Matt Dillahunty from the Atheist Experience has some good stuff to say about this question, which is basically about epistemology. As I understand it, belief isn't a sliding scale, you either believe it, or you doubt it. You don't really have to justify doubt, usually you just don't have enough justification or evidence to accept something as true, which is what believing is.
FranklinsLighthouse 1 year ago
How certain am I that no god exists, not certain at all, maybe 6.5 how certain that your God does not exist 7. He has had 3,000 years to show himself and has failed, so it's a certainty.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
@TheTomtompiper I think people got the impression I'm religious. i'm not.I'm about as hardcore an Atheist as you can get. lol
NegativeNick 1 year ago
I'm an atheist, in that I hold no belief in god. I would assert the nonexistence of the gods of any religion that I've heard of with the same degree of certainty that I have with regard to anything else that I believe I "know." This is to say about 99% because I don't believe 100% certainty is possible in regard to anything but your own existence.
TKninja6 1 year ago
Most self-identified Muslims and Christians I know of have always said yes, they have no doubt whatsoever. They KNOW there's a God. However, I have yet to ever once meet up with any atheist anywhere who claimed to be 100% certain there was no God. With regards to atheism, the question is not what you KNOW, it's what you BELIEVE. If right now, with what you know, the evidence you have, do you believe in any Gods? If the answer is no, then you're an atheist. 100% certainty is irrelevant.
DandAinTac 1 year ago
The best way I'd describe my certainty is how Lewis Black said it (loosely remembered) I'd like to believe, to have the FAITH in God and that the planet was created in 7 days but... I have thoughts and they can really screw up the faith thing."
joemama114 1 year ago
I'm 100% in my belief that god does not exist, because the theory that he exists. presents no physical evidence. In my opinion he's about as real as the easter bunny, or santa claus, or Miley Cyrus' virginity.
KaylebTheKrumpett82 1 year ago
i'm 100% atheist and I doubt i'll ever believe god exists, except on my death bed of course, because after all. We do tend to fear death in the end as our small existence ends.
Microtardz 1 year ago
I must confess that even if I heard God himself tell me that he is real my first thought would be that I'm suffering from schyzophrenia. So as I'm more than 99.9% sure God does not exist I'd like to round that number to 100% without claiming knowledge of the absolute truth. The odds against God existing are astronomical.
Drecon84 1 year ago
I think you are getting a little too wrapped up in semantics and literal meanings. I happen to agree with Dawkins but only for the sake of pedantic individuals. Under the literal meaning of the word 'atheist' as you look at it, I would be a 6.9 out of 7. But in general conversation I identify myself as an atheist; the general understanding of which is 'I have seen no evidence that convinces me that a god or gods exist'. My turning point was 'Letter to a Christian nation' by Sam Harris. Cheers.
lockedinreason 1 year ago
Atheist are not saying that there is, certainly, no god; but rather there is no evidence to be certain that there is one. And from my prospective- there is, in fact, evidence to the contrary- evidence that god do not exist. I think you continue to have an open mind and I congratulate you on your question.
Ifuckedacorpse 1 year ago
I would consider myself amongst the Atheist crowd. The definition that you mentioned is slightly off from my understanding. The major reasoning behind Atheism is that logic and reason are the fundamental components for understanding the laws and forces of the universe. There is no deferment to a supernatural explaination. Claims must have evidence. I think that Atheism allows for an open mindedness that religion can not.
Ifuckedacorpse 1 year ago
Of course I question my certainty in atheism for the fact that I have been force fed the idea of a god from the time I was a child. Due to classical conditioning , we humans have a predisposition to believe in an idea of god. I am agnostic as all get out. Christian theology contradicts itself way too much for me to be a devouted believer.
LaGreatChrisMaxie 1 year ago
I reckon every atheist should be an skeptic also. That's why Richard doesn't put himself at number 7. As he mentioned on that book, if God somehow is proved to exist, with evidence, he'd accepted it and change his mind overnightly.
I was raised as a catholic and turned atheist recently, and I tend to be skeptical about anything. So being 100% either way doesnt work because you are ignoring and being arrogant.
eduardoteixeirajj 1 year ago
Ok, Tell me where was god, when he had not created anything. When there was no sky, no earth, no heavel, no stars no sun no space. Where was he han?
NoKamWithRam 1 year ago
What's wrong with just being an 'Agnostic', that is I doubt the existence of god but wouldn't profess to be absolutely 100% certain
PlayDrumz 1 year ago
@PlayDrumz Agnosticism is on another plane....you can be an agnostic atheist, in which you are fairly certain there is no god but you believe there is no way of knowing for sure.......or an agnostic theist which you a fairly certain there is a god but there is no way of knowing for sure.....then there are people who are gnostic, in which you are 100% certain......I am a agnostic atheist myself
Matrix2458 1 year ago
i myself am in percentage rate would be at a 85% just because of history and that the christian belief was more or less forged up to help explain things like in all religions. And now that we have learned these things it just doesnt seem possible for a higher being to have final rule over us.
ROKONandRELY 1 year ago
I "believe" that God does not exist to the same certainty that I believe fairies, unicorns, and leprechauns don't exist.
BrootalMetalBanjo 1 year ago
i dont want to be anything. do i have to be? i dont know thats all i know for everything that eventually exist people come up with names for, but i dont care.
91jgphonecall 1 year ago
@91jgphonecall yeah you kinda have to be something, whether you like it or not.that's just the very nature of labels, you have to identify with one of them, whether you like it or not. the trick is to self-identify rather than allowing others to label you
NegativeNick 1 year ago
@NegativeNick Your dictionary is wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief in any supernatural being such as a god.
MadPropsToTheHood 10 months ago
Well, I don't believe in God for now (till is proven that it/he/she exists), and as proving it/he/she exists is not possible (for me), i think I'll die with the same believe I have today.
Not believing have simplified much my life in a very good way. I believe in Nature, rules and laws.
God is only a word that explain everything.
The true secret of happiness is discovered by the person within himself (People who claimed that have found God, have just found their selfs).
Take care!
filipcornejo 1 year ago
To claim that you can prove something doesn't exist is foolish. To claim that something must exist because it cannot be disproven, without presenting any evidence in the positive realm for its existence, is even more foolish.
I don't claim that I can prove god doesn't exist. I don't believe he exists because there is absolutely no evidence to show that he does. Therefore, I call myself an atheist.
DavidPirtle 1 year ago
But back to my explanations for how I see myself. I wouldn't call myself an atheist, even though to others I might apparently be so. I think my 'beliefs' are in tradition of wanting detailed analysis and explanations for world phenomenon.
Houdinitreehouse 1 year ago
@Houdinitreehouse are you one who thinks atheist is too negative a term to really be any good?
NegativeNick 1 year ago
@NegativeNick Come to think of it, I guess so. Because isn't the word 'atheist' used by those from a particular religion (any) against those who are have rejected the religion that they practice? Then to 'believers', atheism is equated with a rejection of goodness, even though this is not the case.
Houdinitreehouse 1 year ago
@NegativeNick So it's a negative label, like 'apostasy'. Really, 'atheists' should call themselves something else as it causes semantic confusion. People who call themselves atheists are simply in the new vanguard of thinking. Which is the logical evolution of thinking about what people might call 'spirituality'.
Houdinitreehouse 1 year ago
Like you said NegativeNick and strange as it might sound to people (like my mum), but I don't see Dawkins as an atheist in the conventional sense.
Houdinitreehouse 1 year ago
So my current conclusion is that I am pretty much a 6 on the scale of agnosticism, similar to Dawkins. But at the same time I identify with what Blake called 'the poetic genius' of the religions of the world. But I also see the word God as redundant for my personal usage to explain phenomenon though.
Houdinitreehouse 1 year ago
In your response if there is 100% no God...Two ideas that currently affect my 'beliefs' are: 1. that God was used in the bible as another version of nature (or external world) and its etymological use has shifted to include moral-justice system connotations amongst the religious 2. anthropomorphism
Houdinitreehouse 1 year ago
It's a good question makes my head hurt. I do not like the term. They are a@@holes. I think they have an agenda which I don't know what it is.
tonyd7601 1 year ago
The Dictionary Definition of Atheist is rather poor. There is just no, or not enough evidence for the existence of god.
Though the Jewish/christen/muslim god i'm 100% does not exist. But not not 100%, probably 90-95% certain no god/gods exists or at least pay our planet any mind.
Nan0Tubes 1 year ago
I was once a theist but now I'm an atheist and an anti-theist.
I share the same feelings about religion as Christopher Hitchens.
Zed1967 2 years ago
In respects to what you present about Dawkins is slightly skewed from what I remember of it personally. Dawkins was asked if there was a god period - not specifically one who can intervene in your life or hear your prayers, etc. What he's referring to is what I call the absent-god theory (to my knowledge, I don't think there is an actual proper term for this). Meaning god started the engine of the universe and walked away. Yes, this could be true, and I admit this. But... whats the point?
pokerslut530 2 years ago
@pokerslut530 the term you are looking for is Deist
NegativeNick 2 years ago
Oh, thanks. I for some reason have never bothered to look up that word. Always assumed it was a synonym of theist. Ya learn something new everyday :)
pokerslut530 2 years ago
100% - there has yet to be a natural phenomenon in the entire universe which has observably required a god variable of any kind. Given the broad amount of knowledge amassed, I can confidently say there is no rational reason to even humor such an idea.
I consider myself an ant-theist because to me, atheist means someone who sits quietly with their beliefs. I openly encourage confronting theists about their beliefs. If they can't stand up to logical scrutiny, how are they worthy of belief?
pokerslut530 2 years ago
Well, I think the first question one should ask is "who is this god person anyway?" I have found as many views on god as I have found believers. My response varies by the god, from ignostic (the god is not defined in an Intelligible manner), agnostic-atheist (the god is not impossible but may be rejected on probabilistic and pragmatic grounds), or strong atheism (the god implies a contradiction). I have yet to encounter a " god" which my belief might not be placed in one of these categories.
nathanielselby 2 years ago
"Atheism: The theory or belief that God does not exist."
...thats not exactly a quote from Wikipedia...
I'm an atheist, meaning I believe there are no deities, and, for what I know now, am almost certain of my position.
There is no true/false atheist or 100% certainty, why would you even say that ?
I am certain until proven wrong.
rapzeh4 2 years ago
I think the possibility of a god (in a religious context) is highly improbable, for various reasons.
Although believing in evolution as I do proves how things that seem impossible, if given enough time are highly probable.. so I think theres a probability but I dont really think it really compares to scientific theories, being due to there being no evidence.
sameelatif 2 years ago
Putting it in terms of percentages is kind of silly. It's a "yes or no" question - "do you believe?"
"Do you know?" is a separate question that may have a different answer.
ApesAmongUs 2 years ago
I believe 99.9% that god does not exist because it has exactly as much of evidence as the statement cameron diaz murdered elvis.
MrEnrique223 2 years ago 11
my belief in god about is comparable to my belief in the tooth fairy, regarding the lack of hard evidence we have to support a god existing.
iouakick 2 years ago 8
Hi Nick, thanks for the reply.
Well as I said below, which I will reiterate. From a scientific point of view, which is also mine. There are no absolutes, only probabilities. From my point of view the probability of there being a God is not zero but it is very close. That is the difference between science and religion. religion is about absolutes, science has, and must always have an open mind.
SonOfKwisatzHaderach 2 years ago 2
"Faith, defined as the ability to believe that which you know not to be true". Kerr Avon.
SonOfKwisatzHaderach 2 years ago
I'm not sure i buy that definition. does anyone really know for sure there isn't a god? even atheists don't go that far. Even strong atheists. some may say "there is no god" but not out of absolute certainity, rather, its out of a lack of evidence for the proposition
NegativeNick 2 years ago
Creationism = perfection, Nonsense, there are no absolutes in nature**. if there were nothing could ever change.
God as most people think of him,it,she whatever doesn't and cannot exist. If everything was created, who created GOD the whole concept is contradictory. The thing that could perhaps make sense is a universal energy 'force' Poz & Neg, (perhaps StarWars isn't so for off) which all living things may posses. For the record i am 98% Athiist**, An open mind is a sign of intelligence.
SonOfKwisatzHaderach 2 years ago
by the way, NegNick, try n read other authors than Dawkins (Dawkins is OK but kinda narrowminded, got HIS view and doesnt believe there can B other 1s), for example: Sam Harris, the End of Faith, Carl Sagan's Demonhaunted World and Terry Pratchett's Sience of Discworld, all very good in explaining whats the real difference between an atheist and a theist, the former doesnt BELIEVE actually, s/he ASSUMES and tries 2 KNOW whereas the latter will accept something blindly b/c of his/her FAITH...
mikiw1978 2 years ago
I've read most of harris's, i got Sagan's but havn't had a chance to read it yet, thanks for pratchett's, i'll look that up.
NegativeNick 2 years ago
we know 99% for certain that there is a mechanism called gravity, there R theories like superstring that sort of refute the existence of gravity but still call 4 a mechanism 2 explain the effect gravity has. Iin our everyday lives we have a 100% experience of gravity (just jump from a building, youll get enough proof). so even if youre a 99% atheist and say, well, "you never know a 100%", youre still conciderably more convinced of the nonexistence of god, since there IS 100% NO PROOF of him/it!
mikiw1978 2 years ago
I do not label myself. All of the above mentioned are descriptions & labels that people place on others to categorize them. Anyone who claims that they "know" or are 100% sure there is no God, god(s) ect. or that there is a God, god(s) ect. are lying to themselves. I do not believe in god(s), because there is no valid evidence to support that there is...
samuraispacemonkey 2 years ago
I 100% do not believe in God. I am an Atheist.
Faith is non-falsifiable, and thus I do not think you can compare Theism and Atheism.
There is no God, because science proves there is no God. There is evidence that disproves the bible's claims, and evidence for evolution.
As an Atheist I find religion, faith, and unscientific proofs intolerable and frustrating. Faith is the antithesis of human potential.
To be an Atheist, is to reject religion, gnorance and blind belief without evidence.
MrBlake81 2 years ago
Based on all evidence, and facts that we know about the universe, and the logic used to explain everything we know, I am at the moment 100% certain that a god doesn't exist, because there is absolutely nothing at all in this universe that would say otherwise.
If evidence is uncovered that directly proves the existence of god (which would in affect destroy all current knowledge we have about everything) then I would be a believer, but since there is no evidence, I assert there is no god.
Evanwebster 2 years ago
whatareyou, Victor Stenger?
Thanks! Good answer!
NegativeNick 2 years ago
You're welcome.
I really wouldn't call myself an atheist, because in general the term doesn't really make sense. You wouldn't call a Muslim an "achristian" even though the statement is completely true.
A term that is becoming quite popular these days is "Pearlism" which is not a belief, but an adherence to physical evidence, and reasoned logic. The scientific Method at its core.
Evanwebster 2 years ago
yeah I'm familiar with T-foot's meme, why not just Scientist?
NegativeNick 2 years ago
A scientist is an legitimately educated member of the scientific community. I do not hold this title because I don't have the necessary degrees. I would love to call myself a scientist but until I finish my education I am not quite there yet, so I like what Thunderf00t has gone by.
Evanwebster 2 years ago
I can see what you are saying about not having the degrees, but I still think one could call themselves a scientist if they lived their live according to the scientific method. I'm kind of partial to Shermer's Skeptic because it implies the same thing as scientist but doesn't suppose a post-graduate degree in something.
where are you in your edu btw?
NegativeNick 2 years ago
I am currently working on a biology degree with a focus on evolutionary theory, I am nearly finished with my undergraduate work, and preparing to go for my masters, then PhD. Once I obtain that PhD, and a good job based on my education, only then a scientist will I be.
Evanwebster 2 years ago
sounds good, where are you going?
i'm a second year MA student in using Evolutionary psychology to study films.
NegativeNick 2 years ago
Yeah, I find that a lot of people who call themselves atheists are actually more like what Christians think of as agnostics, but who don't want to suggest there on the fence about religion which they've concluded is human not divine. But many atheists see themselves as concluding there is no evidence for believe in a deity rather than belief they know their is no deity. I think there is no reason to think our religions are more divine than human though there may be something beyond th natural.
myintellectualjourny 2 years ago
Look, why don't you watch Hitchens on his explanation for atheism:
there has never been a good reason put forth that demonstrates the existence of god
AR333 2 years ago
Comment removed
electronicoffee 2 years ago
of couse, but just because something is possible doesn't mean its likely
NegativeNick 2 years ago
for me it works like this, for all practical purposes there is no god but that doesn't mean we can prove that there isn't. unicorns and tooth faries may not likely exist but we can't prove absolutely that they don't.
NegativeNick 2 years ago
but if you're using RD's scale that would mean you can prove absolutely your claim that god doesn't exist. I would like to see your evidence for that claim.
NegativeNick 2 years ago
To the same certainty that I dont believe in unicorns, lephrechauns etc....Dawkins was only recognizing that NOTHING can be known 100 % He actually does identify himself as an atheist, he believes there is no god. Agnostic isnt a position like atheism and theism are. Agnostics are just recognising the impossibility of knowing FOR SURE. So basically you can be an agnostic atheist (which I would think most are) as atheism is usually defined as a LACK of belief implying uncertainty.
boorens18 2 years ago
think critically about that statement. all it really proves is that there are defects in our genes that cause some babies to be born blind, deaf, etc. it's entirely possible a malevelant god is responsible for this type of phenomonon, therefore, the argument from birth defects is not one against the existence of god
NegativeNick 2 years ago
"Atheism" to me means "believing there is no god". Not "knowing". For that you'd need a further qualifier like "strong atheism" or something. I'm an agnostic atheist, which means I don't know, but I'm leaning to one side - I believe there's no god, but I'm not certain. (though close)
DogBoots77 2 years ago
I feel pretty comfortable saying with as much certainty as you can make any claim that the Judeo-Christian does not exist, nor do any man made "religious" Gods.
A Deist god (which I think was derived from religious gods) by religious standards, wouldn't even be considered a (G)od. So even if I believed an intelligent agent jump started the universe (which I see no evidence for)
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
(cont)
I wouldn't consider it a God any more than we would be Gods if we created a sentient computer, or some day learned to create universes ourselves.
That being said, having read pretty much everything Dawkins has written, as well as having heard him speak numerous times, my impression is that the only reason he wouldn't say "there are no gods" is because you can't say ANYTHING with 100% certainty.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
On a completely different topic, how do you find out where RD is going to be speaking? his site only has a few up coming events listed
NegativeNick 2 years ago
Well if you are asking my level of certainty that the God the Christian Bible does not exist, then that would be 99.999....%
I think there very well might have been a prime mover of some sort, but definately not a consious being who thinks and writes books and tells us what to do. If you want to call that a god then go ahead, but it has nothing to do with the historical conception of a god is. I dont think Aristotle would have considered his prime mover a god, Aquinus butchered the whole idea.
jacobins3000 2 years ago
thanks for your comment, I agree with you. the only thing is that god didn't write any books, technically he dictated them. but not that it matters
NegativeNick 2 years ago
I'm an Atheist because of the lack of evidence for a creator. I grew up as a Religious person, however got more knowledge and understanding as growing up and noticed things just didn't sit right, so went back to the old bible and read and I felt really sick that I ever "believed" in that God. As someone said earlier there is no 100% (no matter what anyone says) proof that god does not exist, However you can explain why things have came about via science now. Big Bang, Abiogenesis, Evolution
xxdjsethxx 2 years ago
I'm curious, would you please elaborate on what you mean when you say "...(I) noticed things just didn't sit right..."
Thank you. And thanks for leaving your comment.
NegativeNick 2 years ago
The Contradictions I found in the Bible it self, along with the Old Testament of How sick it really was.
Exodus Chapter 21 - Verse 20 - "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
If you want more info just Google Bible Contradictions, to many for me to even list here.
xxdjsethxx 2 years ago
I've made an interesting case against the Christian Theist god, what's your thoughts on Deism?
NegativeNick 2 years ago
Well Deism still supports the belief in a God, even though I do not "Believe" in any form of God or Gods. I would say Deism would be more acceptable and should be more acceptable to those who currently have faith. It would seem more likely that a God that does not do divine interventions in human affairs, would be more likely. I do not support Raliean either however it would seem likely that there is life that has evolved to the point that's able to create life it self.
cont.
xxdjsethxx 2 years ago
Knowing the History of our planet and the forms of Fossils we have already discovered surely shows a evolutionary track for our world. This is not to say some other force in the Universe would not be capable of creating life. I just do not support the view that , it's How we came to be.
Abiogenesis is a very interesting field to look into and keep a close eye on. I suggest for anyone interested to check into it.
xxdjsethxx 2 years ago
Along with the Contradictions and Sick twisted things in the I started to doubt it, I was always told The normal creation myth, however when I started looking through History I noticed Christianity was not the 1st one and the age of the earth did not match up either to the Bible. Along with all these I formed my on feelings upon the Bible it self, and then started studying science, (evolution, history and recently getting into Abiogenesis) and seen there doesn't need to be a God for us to exist.
xxdjsethxx 2 years ago
Most atheists as far as i know, do not claim they are 100% sure that there is no God. They are really socalled agnostic atheists.
However, many of us are as agnostic toward God as we are toward buddhism, santa clause, faries, unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster.
balkan2k 2 years ago
Well nothing can be known for certain, besides that I (or the individual questioning himself) exist(s).
Since I'm not really certain that anything, including the keyboard I'm typing on, exists, I don't know if it's appropriate to say I believe in something that doesn't even have any evidence that couldn't exist in the first place.
Basically, there's no evidence in favor of theism, so I don't think its correct.
Deterodae 2 years ago
but if nothing can really be proven to exist why do you say that the lack of evidence for a god supports atheism? if all evidence of existence is unprovable, why should the lack of evidence for a god be an argument for atheism?
NegativeNick 2 years ago
I don't really know if I'd call it an argument, that's just a portion of my reasoning.
I was just saying there's already so much to be unsure about, that adding a God that doesn't have any (even potentially nonexistent) data supporting it over complicates things.
Maybe over complicates isn't the right way to put it.
It just circumnavigates the question about the universe's existence, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, i suppose, it... damn Youtube, always cutting me off.
Deterodae 2 years ago
Lack of evidence for God does not support atheism directly. It does however raise the question of "why that particular god??" The sheer amount of religions makes choosing a particular one sheer ludicrusy, and it quite generally becomes a matter of geography and upbringing. People are muslims in the middle east, christians in the west, hindus and buddhists in the east.
Add to this the fact that the holy, infallible scriptures REEK with proven factual errors! So why should we trust those books?
balkan2k 2 years ago
atheism is a belief like NOT collecting stamps is a hobby. If I'm 100% think that unicorns don't exist, then I am 100% god doesn't exist. Since I am not 100% certain unicorns don't exist I don't say that of god either.
megamanium 2 years ago
Wrong from the get go. Atheism is the disbelief in deisties and that is not the same as the belief that deities do not exist. The latter is simply not accepting the belief due to a lack of evidence. Your question is a good one.
ere is somthing to think about. No atheist will say they are certain in their belief that no deities exist, including myself. It is illogical to do so. However many theists claim certainty that god exists and plays a major part in their life. Who is overconfident?
IceBabyHaha 2 years ago
100% God doesn't exist. Just because science doesn't have all the answers to the most precise point doesn't mean we will never know.
macomoto 2 years ago 2
I do not believe there is a God, just as I do not believe in anything without the slightest scientific evidence. No santa, no treespirit and so on. But ofcoarse science haven't given all the answers yet, so I can't close the door compleetly. But you realy have to squeese through. So that 6,9 works fine for me as well.
andvil01 2 years ago
Dawkins' 7-point scale works for me. I, too, am a 6.9. I call myself an atheist on YouTube because I'm sick of arguing over the various definitions of agnostic vs atheist. I don't believe in the supernatural. To my mind what is, is natural. Period. That doesn't leave room for any god. If I'm proved wrong, and either Yaweh or Allah is true, then I suppose I shall be fried up like a giant pork rind one day. Any being capable of doing that to me for lack of belief isn't worthy of worship anyway.
Largo64 2 years ago 3
Atheism defines someone who does not believe in the supernatural. God is supernatural and furthermore there is not any evidence whatsoever for his existence...in fact all the evidence is the other way.
kiwicalibre 2 years ago
If you really cared about intellectual evaluation, then you would have gotten the definitions from a dictionary instead of from wikipedia.
lazyconquistador 3 years ago
Actually, the point of this video is to illustrate that there are many personal definitions of the word Atheist, that's why I offer viewers to include their own. I would argue that neither a dictionary nor Wiki has a final say of what it means to be an Atheist, they merely offer broad generalizations. In truth, anytime you are dealing with an issue as complex as God, its sophomoric to reduce people to simple, all or nothing generalizations.If you don't like the definitions, include your own.
NegativeNick 3 years ago
I'm fully aware that etymological deviations can arise through inconsistent usage, contextual variations, and so forth. However, when dealing with "an issue as complex as God," wouldn't it be more advisable to begin with strenuously categorized definitions as a starting point rather than a source that can be changed on a whim? Maybe relying on wikipedia for definitions is sophmoric to some people? In my humble opinion, I would say that atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god.
lazyconquistador 3 years ago
But isn't that what the definition I posted says anyway?
I agree with you that quoting Wiki isn't acceptable for scholarly work but this is just a youtube video and I wanted to use a general definition, wiki seems very general too me.
So no, I think given the situation it isn't juvenile to quote wiki, besides, their definiton was taken from...
^ Rowe, William L. (1998). "Atheism". in Edward Craig. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
NegativeNick 3 years ago
I agree, your video is presented in an informal manner, so my bad for the harsh criticism. I may have been venting a little because I see way too many university students trying to cite wiki in papers. However, there is a huge difference between lacking belief in a god and claiming there is no god. Since "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," the most one can reasonably assert is that there is insufficient evidence to prove the existence or warrant the belief in any supposed diety.
lazyconquistador 3 years ago
Atheism is the philosophical position that deities do not exist,[1] or that rejects theism.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]
That is the definition from Wikipedia. I think your question is based on the premise of an incomplete definition.
JerryRSun 3 years ago
Agreed. Too many people jump into this argument without understanding the full epistemological definition of the term "atheism".
Atheism implies lack of belief. Agnosticism implies lack of knowledge in the supernatural. What's been classed as "strong" atheism is agnostic atheism: creed immaterial, there is no evidence, nor reason to believe, that there is an supernatural influence on this world.
This probably has been covered in a video elsewhere, but it needs repeating.
Rurne 2 years ago
Well, by his meter of belief, I am a 6.7. I don't believe that a god cannot exist, because that is absurd. I am very open to proof of god(even though i doubt i will see any, since science is neutral towards the supernatural) and won't deny the fact that it is there. I know a god existing is very unlikely, but there is still a possibility(as much a possibility as creationists claiming evolution is random).
makunouchi95 3 years ago
atheism is disbelief in god, not the belief in his absence. like, if santa clause were a god, and you didnt believe in santa clause, then you would be an atheist in that regard. you would say you dont believe in him, you wouldnt say you believe he doesnt exist. disbelief, not belief. most atheists are agnostic, while fewer theists are--this is because they think their lives are at stake, literally. they dont want certain death, so they rationalize their fantasy any way they can. its survival.
Pelonetillo 3 years ago
I am a 6. I admit that there is no way anyone can prove there is no god, but that's about the end of the support I can think of for god, even that isn't really support.
The phrase I would use it "There could be a god...but I really, really doubt it".
Jotto999 3 years ago
It has to do with belief or disbelief. Do you believe in Santa? If not, with what amount of certainty do you disbelieve?
How much certainty do you need to disbelive in something?
locouru 3 years ago
well put sir.
aryiataki 3 years ago
Nick---You sound like someone who "had" religion but not relationship with God. True Christianity is a relationship not a bunch of rules. How can I prove ANY relationship? Its just the time I spend with the individual. If you don't believe in God you shut off any possibility of having a relationship with Him. Get rid of religion---its the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity (or should I say---relationship to God). Blessings!
FurryKatz 3 years ago
I call myself a non-theist. That's clearer than the word atheist, because many people interpret atheist to mean anti-theist, which I am not. I do not believe in gods.
ozmoroid 3 years ago
Its simple really.
The definitions are very basic and should be used loosely.
People call themselves "atheists" based on the common understanding; which is different to the literal translation from the dictionary.
llEricBananamanll 3 years ago
I certainly don't like to label people especially on an issue as big as this. but if you are looking for a word you can relate you, you might want to try Agnostic. someone who doubts the existence of god.
the whole point of this video was to examine the spectrum of possibilities that exist within a word like Atheist. not one is absolutely The or Ag or Ath, its all about finding what works for you and adopting the mold to fit your own understanding.
NegativeNick 3 years ago
I am not opposed to the concept of God. I am opposed to the existence of a physical and sentient God, as Nietzsche was. But Nietzsche was a very religious man. I, alas, am Catholic. I do not believe in the Levitical God that is preached in the Bible, Koran, or Torah. Those are stories and metaphors. When I think about quantum physics, however, God comes back in numbers. So, like I said, 6.9 and climbing.
cupidkid 3 years ago
the 7.0 scale was concerning whether any god existed, not an intelligent creator god vs. a vague sense of order to the cosmos (the god Hawking talks about) and you seem to believe in. You sound more like 1.0 and climbing on Dawkin's scale. that is, you believe there is a god but that it doesn't interact with its creation. does that sound right? if it is, you may be more of a deist. they believed in a creator god but not in all the miracles in the christian bible.
NegativeNick 3 years ago
I definitely do not believe in a creator God. Maybe I haven't given this as much thought as you have. I don't believe in an interactive God, either. I believe that we are casual observers who will never know and cannot possibly comprehend. How would you label me?
cupidkid 3 years ago
Good point. I thought you were going to go on a tirade about theism/atheism, but you poised a good question that made me think. I am like Dawkins (6.9 and climbing), but I am in no way opposed to the idea of a higher power or being.
cupidkid 3 years ago
Thanks!
How can you be 6.9 and climbing and yet "...no way opposed to the idea..." of a god? Do you mean to say that you don't rule out the possibility of a god, just the probability?
NegativeNick 3 years ago
I am as certain that there are no gods as I am that there are no invisible blue elves living under my bed. I cannot rule out for FACT there is no god just as I cannot rule out for fact there are no blue goblins. However without a single speck of evidence for either I feel comfortable in my belief of no gods.
fractal420 3 years ago
the other 15 percent is luciferian...
evilresidence4 3 years ago
id say like... about 85-99
evilresidence4 3 years ago
I would call myself an atheist because i don't belvieve in gods mentioned in christianity, islam or any other religion. when it comes down to supernatural beings i can only be agnostic.
HebiNoMe 3 years ago
this is so lame, everything you said has already been covered multiple times by multiple users
easytorememberme 3 years ago
6.8, less than dawkins, cause he knows more than me. The God of the bible probably 6.9999... And i'd call myself atheist
junglecatjr69 3 years ago
I am an atheist in response to the proposed Gods of man-made religions. I do not believe in the existence of the god of the bible, Allah, or any of the hundreds of other gods that have been imagined. I see no evidence for any of them
Is it possible that a creator exists who didn't write a book and doesn't communicate with humans?
Yes. That's possible. I think it's unlikely, but it's possible.
Raydo97 3 years ago
Its Actually more possible that were in a simulation of a universe in some advanced civilizations lab or computer, (like a matrix but maybe more or less evil). Thats if you subscribe to the twist on the multi universe theory, that is there is a universe for every possible possibility. I don't know much about the theory but I don't believe many people support it. But the multi-universe theory is becoming more popular as far as i can tell.
junglecatjr69 3 years ago
I am an atheist a far as all thought of gods go. I am agnostic as to what is unknown. There is no evidence for the supernatural. You can debate the existence of gods but the evolution-creation debate is way over. This stuff is just wack a mole.
grenangle 3 years ago
What can you say really? The dictionary is wrong in its definition. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. The definition in the dictionary applies only to "strong atheism", not atheism as a whole.
Thus, agnostics like myself are also atheists.
There are several different branches of atheism, each with its own level of certainty. To define all of atheism as the belief you'd find in only one of the brances is just silly.
pallevader 3 years ago
I'm 100% certain. regardless of what anyone says.
Epblueyes 3 years ago
Comment removed
atheistnarutofan 3 years ago
Continued: Of course, you should say a), as you simply have no belief in that concept. Of course, you could investigate more and decide that it's wrong, and your answer will become b), but that's only after examining the evidence. Atheism is position a), not position b).
endergt 3 years ago
More on definitions... if the definition of "theism" is "Belief in the existence of a god or gods", then the more appropriate definition of "atheism" is "Lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods".
But why do we need a word, anyway? I mean, what's the word for "Lack of belief in... " a) Santa Clause? b) Fairies? c)Pink Unicorns?
Let's say someone introduces you to a concept you've never heard of before... would you say you a) lack belief in that concept or b) believe the concept wrong?
endergt 3 years ago
You're getting far too hung up on the terminology (and I think your definition is wrong). If you do not have a belief in a god or gods, you are an atheist.
Personally, I call myself an atheist because it's the easiest way to communicate to others my religious perspective - I have not seen sufficient evidence to believe that there is a god, nor have I seen conclusive evidence to know for sure that there is not... but the evidence I have seen leads more strongly down the "not" path.
endergt 3 years ago
I submitted a video, but this comment follows up. I think "non-theist" probably best describes my take. It's broad enough to capture nuances that 'atheist' might exclude. I'm also OK with "ignostic" and "theological non-cognitivist." Since believers can't provide a postive, coherent ontology for what they call "god" (at least I've yet to see one do it) -- a task that is logically prior to the question of whether a god exists -- I don't think we can even reach the existence questions.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
I give it 100% certainty there is no god. Here's why. If me and my friends wrote a book about a silver unicorn that spewed the entire universe out of its horn, WOULD THE REST OF THE WORLD BE FORCED TO CONSIDER THIS AS A POSSIBILITY FOR THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE? Of course not. This is why I don't need to consider god as he is simply a character in a 2k year old storybook.
floydoid 3 years ago
I would give it a fair amount of certainty. I would definitely never give it 100%, but it would definitely be close for most of the gods that are claimed to exist.
I feel that, if anything, there could be a deistic-type god - one that does not interact with this world at all. It just set the universe into motion, and is sitting back and relaxing. But I see no real reason to believe that to be true, currently.
I'd rank myself where Dawkins is... at 6.9.
TomConger 3 years ago
While I am not 100% sure there is NO god; I am precisely AS sure that there is no Santa Claus.
FloydsterUtube 3 years ago
Faith: not wanting to know what is true.
FloydsterUtube 3 years ago
What amount of certainty do you have that the Tooth Fairy does or dosen't exist?
And why?
deano39 3 years ago
I do not label myself as any particular thing. I have no belief in god due to the fact that there is no solid evidence for the existence of one.
RationalConclusion 3 years ago
You're asking the wrong questions.
The right question is "WHY have you taken the position you espouse?" I'm an atheist because there is no evidence for the god that the religious assert exists. If evidence comes along, I'll revise my position, but until that time I simply have no reason to even SUGGEST that there MIGHT be a god.
I'm not asserting that there ISN'T one, only that there is absolutely no reason to give that assertion credence AT ALL...and that my position is malleable to evidence.
BionicDance 3 years ago
"Atheism: The theory or belief that God does not exist."
No.
Desertphile 3 years ago 2
Richard Dawkins identifies himself as an atheist. He just doesn't identify himself as an atheist according to the definition you're giving here. Almost no one does. No one can say "100% : there is no god" when the definition of god changes from person to person.
At least 5 people a day upload videos telling atheists what they do or do not believe. The simplest definition of atheism is "the lack of belief in gods"
I'm 100% sure that Yahweh doesn't exist. I'm a little less sure about Odin.
arlopickens 3 years ago
I'm 100% sure there is no christian god, that idea is just too silly
reiofcats 3 years ago 3
I consider most particular religions to be utterly false - Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. They have less likelihood of being true than one has of squaring the circle.
It's possible there is some kind of God. I just don't believe one exists. I actively think there is no God. I'm not absolutely certain, of course - nor do I need to be.
I suppose you could say I'm a 6.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
Your definition of 'atheism' is different than the one that most atheists use. To them, atheism is just a lack of belief (which is what many religious people consider 'agnosticism').
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
Regarding Dawkins, he does not say he is not an atheist, he just acknowledges that he does not know everything. He is open to new information, despite the fact that his current understanding shows no evidence of any god outside the imagination.
Cafeeine 3 years ago
Most atheists here will disagree with your definitions of the terms agnostic/atheist. Agnostic refers to knowledge. There are agnostic theists and atheists.
An atheist is everyone who is not a theist, i.e who actively believes a god exists. it does not require absolute certainty in the nonexistence of a god, just to a certainty based on evidence or the lack of it.
Cafeeine 3 years ago